Roberts v Chief Constable of Kent

Roberts v Chief Constable of Kent

The judge was entitled to find, based on the facts, expert evidence, and the circumstances, that the use of the police dog constituted reasonable force under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. No error in the judge's reasoning was established.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Roberts; Respondent: Chief Constable of Kent
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Battery, Trespass to the Person, Reasonable Force, Vicarious Liability, Use of Police Dogs
Tort Law Criminal Law Battery Trespass to the Person Reasonable Force Vicarious Liability Use of Police Dogs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roberts

Appellant

Chief Constable of Kent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of force by a police dog in effecting arrest was reasonable under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967
  2. 2 Whether the Chief Constable is vicariously liable for injuries caused by the police dog

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find, based on the facts, expert evidence, and the circumstances, that the use of the police dog constituted reasonable force under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. No error in the judge's reasoning was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed